Looking at Dr Stosny's model of identity through a Christian lens

and seeing a correspondence

I think I can see a correspondence in the order of the aspects of identity in Dr Steven Stosny’s model of identity, with scripture. If I’m correct, then Dr Stosny has developed a secular model which incidently corresponds to scripture - at least part of it- and if we can see that correspondence, then we can begin to more clearly see the spiritual strategy of the enemy, and then that in itself becomes a stepping stone to seeing the spiritual dynamics of the present ‘identity war’ on our children through the imposition of gender ideology in schools and through media.

To recap, here is Dr Stosny’s model of a healthy secure identity. He developed this model as a result of a lifetime of counselling and helping people restore psychological health. He observes that when people develop a hyperfocus in the top rungs of the pyramid, it induces prolonged stress and dysphoria.

But, why the top rungs of the pyramid, especially? Why doesn’t a hyperfocus on the bottom rungs produce a similar negative effect?

What is significant about this particular order of these aspects of identity?

I listen a lot to the sermons of John MacArthur, who explains scripture line by line, verse by verse, in great detail. As I listen to him exposit the scripture, I find myself reflecting on Dr Stosny’s model, too.

What I see is a correspondence between closeness to God, at the bottom of the pyramid, and distance from God, at the top.

• ‘Basic Humanity’ corresponds with the concept of ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’.

• Character corresponds directly to matters of character, explained in the Bible.

• Ideology/beliefs/and faith seems to me to be a secular acknowledgement of the role of faith, but it has been subordinated to a humanistic model which places humanity above God. However, this in itself is useful, in that it has been acknowledged.

• Talents and skills corresponds to the gifts we have been given by our Creator and the great joy we experience when we engage them to do God’s will in our lives.

• Experiences corresponds straightforwardly to the experiences we have which create our earthly sense of self.

• Group affiliation also corresponds straightforwardly to a sense of fellowship, family, community, culture etc.

• Race/ethnicity corresponds to where we are from, what our earthly culture is, what we look like… however for those who ‘are in Christ Jesus’,

“there is neither Jew nor gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” Galatians 3:28.

What this means is that race/ethnicity are not dividing labels for those who believe in Jesus Christ. It’s not ‘anti-discrimination’ but simply ‘un-discrimination’. Discrimination of any sort is simply not an issue for those who know Jesus Christ.

• ‘Sexuality’ is a contemporary concept introduced in recent years to expand upon the traditional “binary” expression of sexuality. From a scriptural perspective, manifestations of sexuality which are outside of marriage between a man and a woman are sinful- not what God wants us to do. From a spiritual warfare point of view, it could be argued that ‘sexuality’ is a word and concept which has been constructed in order to justify sin and to lead the next generation further away from God, and towards self indulgent ‘sins of the flesh’. (I’m fully aware that what I’m writing is not politically correct! But am nevertheless moved to write this.)

• ‘Gender’ at the top of the pyramid is likewise a recently constructed concept to expand on the concept of ‘sex’, as in ‘male or female’. I can remember the 1970s when ‘gender’ was a linguistic term to describe - say for example, ‘le’ and ‘la’ in French which are masculine and feminine determiners, equating to ‘the’ in English.

  These days, children are being taught in schools that gender is a thing which exists in the heart… and it’s the gateway to immense confusion for young people, about being male or female. Children are being taught that ‘sex is between your legs and gender is what is in your heart’. The implication is therefore that a young person can be ‘born into the wrong body’. That in itself is a very curious concept because it paradoxically acknowledges the non-flesh part of ourselves- in other words, the spiritual part of ourselves…. but it stops short of saying so because to do so would invite questions of a spiritual nature.

Okay, so looking at the concepts in order from bottom to top bottom in Dr Stosny’s model, it seems to me that they begin in matters of outward focus and progressively become more self -focussed. Selflessness at the bottom, selfishness at the top. Matters of the spirit at the bottom and matters of the flesh - and lies- at the top.

What do you think? Have I imagined this correspondence? or do you see the same thing? Please let me know your thoughts.